/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Catholics are huge reactionaries, christians not so much

>>2731498
All religion, including seemingly secular civic religions like Confucianism is parasitic, idealist, and reactionary. I will not say equally so and burden myself with making a tier list. But suffice it to say that an attack on religion is Communist. Among the most reactionary religions are the religions with caste/class/race/ethnocentric systems built in to the dogma.
>>2731504
>Catholics are huge reactionaries, christians not so much
naive idealist statement. what even is a non catholic "christian." this unspecified nonsense includes everyone Orthodox Christians in Russia to Evangelical zionist Protestants in the USA

Since when is Alunya catholic? But anyways I have nothing against Catholics, my extended family is Catholic and my parents baptized me so they wouldn’t freak out. As a Marxist I believe religion will fade away but I don’t believe in the suppression of religion. Castro put it best when he said "faith is a personal matter that must be born in the conscience of every person. But atheism shouldn't be used as a rallying cry."

>>2731530
A christian is someone who follows Jesus's teachings. Catholics were never christian. Quakers are more christian than any of the people you mentionned above

>>2731546
>A christian is someone who follows Jesus's teachings
ok so almost nobody ever

>>2731536
> I don’t believe in the suppression of religion
you will leave your guard down and they will destroy you

It would be neat to give catholics there own special administrative region as massive social experiment to see how an attempt at distrubutist economics goes

>>2731589
Whatever Lenin was wrong on this. Im not a full on Marxist-Leninist. I respect Lenin and think that he was good but he was wrong on many issues. And by suppression of religion I don't mean arresting corrupt clerics but rather trying to eradicate it from public life.

It is another degenerate Jewish revolutionary cancer, centered around getting the world to bow down to the God of Israel, which in reality means getting the gentiles to worship Jews. It is definitely not reactionary in origin though, everyone saying that is dead wrong. The early Christians in the Roman Empire were revolutionaries who sought to create a new order and erase the traditions of the past.

>>2731536
>>2731595
You think so because you are religious. To be Atheist in belief but to nevertheless practice religion with one's family and community in order to avoid ostracization is to still be religious. The communists openly admit they are non religious and disdain to conceal their aims. Religion is understood not just as belief/faith (idea) but as practice. To see religion merely as a set of problematic beliefs held by an individual is both idealistic and individualistic, which is reactionary deviation from the Communist line. The world is full of people who are nonbelievers but never confess to be such, and nevertheless practice and support the institutions of religion. Many of them are even clergy, since religion in class society is a social tool for manipulating the behavior of the working classes on behalf of the ruling classes, regardless of the mode of production. It is fundamentally an inter-class institution that encourages class collaboration through the recognition of a "human condition" common to all classes for which religion itself is the supposed cure. But as Marx points out:

>The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.

>>2731596
I would highly recommend everyone here read the Darkening Age by Catherine Nixey, it illuminates what Christianity is like in its purest form.

>>2731595
>Im not a full on Marxist-Leninist.
You are not even a Marxist. You are a Marx-curious liberal. There are many like you. You are afraid of what is historically necessary because you don't want to be seen as a "bad guy" who "oppresses people." It is evident when you repeated CIA narratives about Xinjiang, but softened slightly with your centrist instincts.

>>2731602
> it illuminates what Christianity is like in its purest form.
there is no purest form of christianity. it has always been a fractured ideology. Even when it emerged in Roman occupied Judea it was a syncretic and highly unstable ideology emerging out of a synthesis between Second Temple Judaism, Roman Polytheism, and Roman Civic Religion.

>>2731498
Probably the most brutal and oppressive religious institution to ever exist.

>>2731602
Catholicism is Christianity in its purest form

Catholicism = Christianity = abrahamism = reactionary

>>2731498
I am queer and the Catholics are trying to kill me.

>>2731611
It really is not, they do not even practice the oral Torah like the early Christians did. Catholicism is diet Christianity.
>>2731605
>There is no purest form of Christianity it was always a fractured ideology
This I agree with
However it was not always a fusion between Second Temple Judaism and Roman Polytheism as you say it was. Early Christians hated Roman polytheism more than any other faith. When Christians gained political control over Rome, they outlawed every religion except for Christianity and Judaism. This would remain the case until the Eastern Roman Empire legalized Zoroastrianism after a costly war with Parthia. There was nothing Early Christians hated more than the “false” idolatrous deities of the Roman pantheon, they would only tolerate the worship of their God. They detested many of the traditions and rituals of Roman polytheism, and these traditions were only incorporated into Christianity hundreds of years after its conception. Christianity did not start with Catholicism.

>>2731612
Abrahamism is about replacing the old pagan world with a new system of worship centered around Yahweh, it is revolutionary in origin.

>>2731632
>pagan
a reductive term for all non-Abrahamoids. Abrahamoids will accuse Atheists of being "Satanists" or "Pagans" as well. They will accuse one another of being "infidels" for not following the correct Abrahamoid mind virus. They will accuse religions which emerged very recently of being "pagan". The term "Pagan" was originally used to slander the Canaanite pantheon YHWH emerged from, sweeping the polytheistic origins of Yahwistic Monotheism under the rug.

>>2731632
"Paganism" in its various forms is still alive, and it's not even just contrarian hippie pagan revival shit. The clergy never fully succeeded in totally eliminating paganism among the small rural communities, even in Europe.

>>2731746
It never succeeded in fully destroying paganism, but that was its goal. It cannot fully destroy European paganism unless it destroyed European people. Christianity is a revolutionary anti-white religion.

>>2731774
why are you here

>>2731774
>Christianity is a revolutionary
retarded
>anti-white religion.
retarded for a diff. reason

all in all, retarded

Religion inherently sucks but I’m not rude enough to say that to an ELN guerrilla, if you can twist whatever book in such a way it motivates you to fight the system good on you

It is better at least than the evangelism that comes from USA

>>2731788
Do you know what the word revolutionary means?

>>2731746
And that's a bad thing

>>2731632
What was once revolutionary becomes reactionary when it opposes the new revolutionaries. Fuedalism was revolutionary compared to slavery. Capitalism was revolutionary compared to Feudalism etc.

>>2731586
Exactly my point

>>2731970
The problem is that the Atheistards who recognize this problem attack it in the most ineffective way possible by just banning all religion altogether and driving it underground where it will mutate into schizo cults and anti-government networks that assist the West.
China and Vietnam show that you can implement a relatively tolerant religious policy without needlessly shoving atheism into everyone's face.

>>2732005

>According to a 2012 Gallup poll, 47% of Chinese people were convinced atheists, and a further 30% were not religious. In comparison, only 14% considered themselves to be religious.

Vietnam is 86% irreligious. Czech Republic and Estonia are majority atheist.

These do not happen by accident. A communist government that promotes scientific thinking can easily make the majority of the population atheist.

Religious ideologies are not inherent to human biology, it has to be inculcated. Simply not inculcating it and actively inoculating people against it works wonders.

>>2731970
Yeah it's dumb. People online tend to have no real interest in understanding the world since it's a spectacle machine to them. But on the other hand, we're well past the time when religion actually mattered in most countries. It's an accessory even in the global south. Latin America is going through a wave of evangelical conversions among compador bourgeois and aligned lumpen for no reason other than to suck off their American Zionist masters better.
You also very much overstate the importance of religion in reaction in Eastern Europe. The small bump they saw is quite insignificant in terms of the whole population and very few people ever made a habit of going to church or incorporated religion into their worldview in a way that wasn't around before. Many regions of Eastern Europe are majority irreligious and of the ones that aren't, they are functionally irreligious. No amount of propaganda actually works to make people care about religion. The liberal sentiment that evolved into official EU ideology was far more relevant and as such they will get far more suppression than religious people who don't even align with reaction a lot of the time by now. Just let boomers pray in peace, who cares. We have bigger fish to fry.

>>2731498
Catholicism was one of the things that got global capitalism rolling. The Church was the first trans-regional cooperation, they enshrined the idea of corporate legal personhood into law etc. Scotist and nominalist theology established the primacy of the individual and state supremacy, not to mention the separation of the natural and supernatural, which paved the way of the scientific revolution and the separation of theology from economics and politics. Crucially, by stripping away the idea of divine grace from the natural world (the realm of politics and economy), both the state and market are seen as morally neutral. So Catholicism paved the way for liberal capitalism and is compatible with it. But it also paved the way for "actually existing" state socialism. State socialism (market, soc dem "socialism" and Soviet style) uproots both production and the state from any communal control or civic society, with civic virtues (e.g. charity for the poor) now embodied in an intermediary organizations (state welfare office) that are above society.

Basically, both capitalist and state socialist ideas depend on nominalist and voluntarist theology which came from Catholicism. So the question of which side Catholicism on is already a pointless question. The "Catholicsism/religion is reactionary" tards ITT are ignorant of how their anti-religion is actually a secret pseudo-theology which is dependent on the same Christianity they love to attack. They are laughably ignorant of how the majority of Catholic clergy these days are left leaning or at least centrist liberals.

So if you are a Catholic what should be done? Because Catholic theology contributed to capitalism, it is basically compatible with it. If you look at the current and last Popes, what they were calling for were Catholic moral restraints on capitalism, not moving past it. So Catholics who are left leaning or oppose capitalism have to come up with a new theology that will avoid these problems. Its not enough to separate your religious life from your political one and be Catholic in the sheets and a socialist in the streets. What's needed is a new theology that will undermine the ability to make Catholicism compatible with capitalism and undermine capitalist ideology itself, not that pitty patter shit Pope Francis was doing.

The Catholic Church (Rome) is The Beast of the Book of Revelation, which fights against God to have dominion over the earth. Popes and Kings are wicked bretheren that appoint themselves masters over men. They are the Powers and Principalities that seek to conquer the flesh and spirit of the true Fellowship.

>>2732046
the Beast is Nero come back to life, but it's a bad thing

>>2732051
No, Nero is Caesar, the Anti-Christ, who does the bidding of The Beast. The Anti-Christ is then Pontif Maximus, which in Catholicism, is the Pope. So the Pope is the perennial Caesar and Anti-Christ.
>>2732044
You should look up the "Statutes of Mortmain" (1279) which designates corporations as bodies of the church and so the claims to the property of land are personified as "dead hands" (mortmain):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Mortmain
You are incorrect however, that this idea of Papal property began capitalist relations; it was rather the privatisation of church property by distribution to Gentry that started it, such as with Henry VIII's "Dissolution of the Monasteries" (1536-41), which was Protestant, not Catholic. The absolutism of Northern European reformation allowed for the nationalisation and subsequent privatisation of property, which grew the power of individuals and created economic dependence. So it was separation from the Catholic Church that began the process of separating the people from the land. The Dutch Reformed Church (1571-) followed the Anglican Church (1534-) and that's why these powers were ahead of everyone else. One of the first joint-stock companies was the "Muscovy Company" (1555), followed by the English "East India Company" (1600), then by the "Dutch East India Company" (1602).

I actually like it a bit mostly due to my very catholic uprising, which I also believe is what makes me sympathetic to communism.

Sadly, most so-called "catholics" here are not really practicing or even believers, they just believe whatever they feel like - mostly, it's aberrant prosperity gospel adjacent idolatry or similar heresies.

t. chilANO

>>2732060
You're correct that I've probably made a mistake here. But I want to avoid this blame game where Protestants and Catholics blame each other for causing capitalism. Its hard to say there was one moment where capitalist relations were initiated, it was a long multifaceted development, and both Catholics and Protestants contributed to it in their own way, often unwittingly. This complicates the claims of anti-capitalist Christians, who claim Christianity is authentically communist or anti-capitalist, because various strands of Christian theology form the bedrock of capitalism, and even atheism. There will be no movement in an anti-capitalist direction without theological work.

>>2732076
Indeed, the origins of the slave trade begin with the Catholic Portuguese and Spanish (1441) and later began the transatlantic slave trade in 1526, while the first African slave in England appeared in 1555. The origin of capitalism is concurrent with the Age of Discovery, which highlights Columbus and The New World with African slave colonies (David Graeber also discusses how Columbus was only motivated in his journey by the demand for debts, which led him to go to India by tales of available gold). In terms of momentum however, I would apply the Weberian thesis that the "protestant work ethic" is a core part of it. Marx also comments on this here:
<for a society based upon the production of commodities […] Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, &c., is the most fitting form of religion.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm

>>2731914
Then you people should have no issue with me calling early Christianity revolutionary, yet aside from your post, all I have gotten is crying and kvetching when I proposed the idea.

>>2732046
>The Catholic Church (Rome) is The Beast of the Book of Revelation
The Catholic Church didn't exist yet and what I mean by that is it didn't exist particularly as an institution which was distinct from other forms of Christianity, and certainly not as an institution which had taken over Rome, when Revelation was written. Rome was still dominated by Roman Polytheism was Revelation was written. It's clearly a political allegory for pre-Christian Rome, attributed to an Evangelist on the island of Patmos. Since it's an allegorical text, people can continually reinterpret it to match whatever time period they happen to live in. Materialists are forced to re-engage with the same slop over and over as it does a costume change over the ages. Political figures from Nero to Obama have been called Anti-Christ.

>>2732095
point to your original post so we can determine whether you claimed it was merely early Christianity which was revolutionary, because we have multiple anons ITT, and some of them, like this one:
>>2731774
>Christianity is a revolutionary anti-white religion.
have claimed that Christianity continues to be revolutionary today. Are you that same anon?

>>2731824
Yes, but you apparently do not.

>>2732087
>I would apply the Weberian thesis that the "protestant work ethic" is a core part of it
Agreed. However, I'm a bit skeptical of some of the particularities of Weber's theory. Now, we can't clearly separate Protestantism and Catholicism and there's been too much focus given to Protestant contributions while ignoring Catholic ones.

<Christianity with its cultus of abstract man, more especially in its bourgeois developments, Protestantism, Deism, &c., is the most fitting form of religion.
Marx's problem is that his view of Christianity is unhistorical e. g. this cult of the abstract individual wasn't a feature of early Christianity, but arose from Ockham's nominalism. Protestantism, Catholicism, deism, and atheism are all birds of the same family tree. Capitalism is essentially secular and today's age "the most fitting religion" is that of the secular none with secularized forms of Catholicism and Protestantism being compatible but not ideal.

We have to reverse Marx's formula that all critique begins with the critique of religion. Today, critique must begin with the critique of irreligion and secularized religious creeds which provide theological justification to capitalism. This is what revolutionary Christians must do. The problem online is that Christian leftists accept a secularized form of their own faith because that's what liberal progressives feed them, without realizing how both those things contribute to the capitalist order.

>>2732096
(i) Rome is the Beast
(ii) Caesar is the Anti-Christ
(iii) The Pope is the new Caesar of the new Rome
We should at least agree on the first two.

>>2732097
I am the same person
I think the biggest cause of confusion in what I am saying is because you all seem to think that Catholicism = Christianity
This is not the case
Catholicism is a syncretic religion between Essene Christianity and Hellenism/Neo-Platonism
It was created to placate both the Christian extremists and the wider Roman population. The people who were the Christian revolutionaries would move on to other Christian sects, some failed some succeeded. Today the revolutionary Christians are the Christian zionists along with their rabbi handlers who want to bring about the apocalyptic prophesies of their dogma by bringing the world into a catastrophic war, but these people are almost all Protestant not Catholic. I concede that Catholicism is largely reactionary through most of its history and its conception, as it was created to appease the reactionary pagans more so than Essene Christianity did. Perhaps what I want to talk about it beyond the scope of this threads topic, as it was created specifically for Roman Catholicism. But I will say this reactionary Christianity causes far less problems than the revolutionary Christians. Look at Essene Christianity/The infancy of the Chalcedonian Church in Northern Europe/ Pure Protestants these are people who took Christianity more seriously and were always at odds with the more reactionary population of Europe when they tried pushing their Jewish dogma onto everyone else. Revolutionary Christianity must be more actively opposed than Reactionary Christianity.

>>2731778
I got drunk last night and somehow ended up here.

>>2732105
>Ockham
But Ockham's contributions only occur in the 14th century, by which time, the tradition of liberty, or individualism has precedence, such as in the Magna Carta (1215) which was itself opposed by Pope Innocent III, in his Bull "Pro rege Johanne" (1215). This is also preceded by the Pope's "Bulla Aurea" (1214) which saw the King of England submit to The Catholic Church, and offer direct tribute (only revoked in 1365). The Barons who forced the hand of King John later got their shared powers in the Model Parliament (council) in 1295, following through the demands of the Charter, which by 1327 also saw the bourgeoisie composing a part of the house of commons, which only gained true ascendancy from 1649-89.

Momentous of the 14th century was not just nominalism, but reformation in general, with such figures as John Ball (1338-81) and John Wycliffe (1330-84) who also helped lead the Peasant Revolt of 1381, which saw radical theology of egalitarianism and the freedom of citizens from the yoke of serfdom - with the Wycliffe Bible (1395) being transcribed as the first commonly available Bible in Europe (since by this time, most Bibles were printed as Latin Vulgate, and the elites of England did not commonly speak English til the 15th century). Wycliffe was later tried as a heretic by the church (1415) and his body burned. So a spirit of reformation clouds the scenes for the developing age, which by the time of Luther (1517) had boiled over, such as in the Peasant's War of Germany (1524-6). I think it would be remiss to deny that modernity requires reformation.

>Capitalism is essentially secular
I entirely disagree. Alchemy was first practiced in Ancient Greece, later adopted by Arabs (e.g. Geber, 800 CE), until it was revolutionised by Paracelsus in the early 16th century, and from thence, spread into the mind of every civilised man (not for the least sake that most manuscripts were written in Latin). Alchemy is capitalist, it is making gold out of lead. Marx comments:
<Because it is value, it has acquired the occult quality of being able to add value to itself. It brings forth living offspring, or, at the least, lays goldeuyghs.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch04.htm
It consumed Isaac Newton (1643-1727) who similarly described Gravity as "action at a distance" which repudiated a material cause, and so he appealed to an aether or spiritual powers instead. The Freemasons are thought of as formally beginning in 1717 with their Grand Lodge in England. The French Revolutionaries as well as the American Revolutionatlries were masons. The Occult was entirely mainstreamed in the 19th century, just as the industrial revolution was underway. Even the literary art of the novel gained popularity, as a means to dispense what is not factual for the means of mass entertainment, so modernity also means an increase in false appearances and witness. What's interesting to also notice is that the first modern novel, Don Quixote (1605-15) drips with modern irony and sensibility, that poor Don, who longs for adventure and a lost past, confronts the dryness of a cynical audience, appearing as a madman. This modern humour then may come to define the age, but it is not at such a cynicism reaching godlessness, as you infer.

>>2732105
>>2732148
To make an even further point on secularism, the US has a separation of Church and State, but at the same time is a functional theocracy. So I see that things are more complex than the typical view of "progress".

>>2732108
point 3 is your particular interpretation of what is obviously a highly allegorical text. a political cartoon without the hand holding and labels.

>>2731601
I’m not religious dumbass, I’m also and atheist, I’m just not an Atheist-zealot

>>2731603
Oh my fucking god I can’t fucking stand you people. I’m not a liberal and I don’t support CIA narratives of Xinjiang, if I did I would have called it a genocide which it is not. All I did was say that it was not right to profile an entire ethnic group the way that they did because I am against all forms of cultural imperialism, even if it is by a socialist government

>>2732148
Again, I'm not saying Ockham started it, but its an important thread that contributed to the development of capitalism. I don't mean to downplay the Reformation either. The rise of secular capitalism was a long development with many streams and intellectual currents feeding into it, including Catholic and Protestant theology among other things. The Reformation was absolutely critical, but this leads people to overlook and downplay the Catholic influence.

Capitalism relies on secularism, and secularism evolved out of Western Christianity. Secular leftists make a category error when they assume that the problem is Christianity's residual influence, which has to be stripped away to achieve true secularism, because secularism is a transformation of Christian theology not an escape from theology.

>>2732149
The US isn't a theocracy. Even MAGAtards recognize the church/state separation, although they might challenge what belongs in what realm. Christian nationalists in America are secular. They aren't interested in subordinating the state to ecclesiastical authority, but pushing the idea that America is a nation state for white Christians. They are ethno majoritarians who believe Christians should be privileged because they are the majority demographic, not that the state should be run by priests.

I used to resent them for ostracizing me for my religion (messianic judaism tyshi) despite it i appreciated whichever friends i had despite our disagreements.

til i found out the political enemy should be neopagan anglo protestants and ashkenazi larpers.

along with every single one of their kkklaws in latam like evangelicals and other Israeli funded churches.

>>2732539
> All I did was say that it was not right to profile an entire ethnic group
damn almost like that's not actually happening and that's a CIA narrative, proving what I said:
<It is evident when you repeated CIA narratives about Xinjiang, softened slightly with your centrist instincts.

You seek a false middle ground between blatant glowie lies about genocide and the truth which is that the CPC reeducated CIA-backed ETIM separatists in Xinjiang. This false """"middle""" ground between the lie and the truth is "heh i guess the CPC is racially profiling an entire ethnic group." This is the problem with being afriad of looking like a "tankie" you end up looking for a middle ground between lies and truth. I used to be you. You'll learn. You'll fall for it a million more times first maybe though. "Maybe this time there really is a kernel of truth to America's accusations" you might tell yourself "maybe other governments are also capable of being bad" you'll logically reason. That's true, other governments are capable of being bad. I invite you to provide a shred of evidence for your claims however.

>>2732821
Oh my fucking god it is not liberal propaganda to say that it is wrong to fucking round up an entire ethnic and put them in reeducation camps!!! You mother fuckers always talk about how liberal and revisionist modern China is but the only time that you defend them is for the worst reason possible!!! I know that the CIA funds Al-Qaeda affiliate terrorist groups, it doesn’t matter, there is no excuse for the reduction camps, that’s like defending the Japanese internment camps because Japan did Pearl Harbor. Obviously the Xinjiang thing is nothing compared to the multiple real genocides the US is doing but it is still worth disavowing, not disavowing all of China obviously but just this one policy. And as for your evidence thing I can’t give you anything because you would just say that it is not accurate because it is a western source, because there are no eastern sources because of China’s lack of transparency.

>>2731596
>It is another degenerate Jewish revolutionary cancer, centered around getting the world to bow down to the God of Israel, which in reality means getting the gentiles to worship Jews.
were you by any describing communism?

That Alunya just looks weird mang.

>>2731613
I am a fetus and the liberals are trying to kill me

>>2733233
>I know that the CIA funds Al-Qaeda affiliate terrorist groups, it doesn’t matter, there is no excuse for the reduction camps, that’s like defending the Japanese internment camps because Japan did Pearl Harbor
it's nothing like that.

>>2731596
>>2733466
why are either of you here. do you think you're redpilling normies or something.

My experience with Catholicism is steeped in superstition. My aunt can smell the Padre Pio on the wind and buried a statue of St Joseph upside-down facing north in her front yard to sell her house.

The amount of rituals as well as the belief in transubstantiation amounts to little more than majick with Christian characteristics.

Today Catholics pay a tithe every week despite the Church paying at minimum $3million USD in the US alone related to "corrupt" priest sex scandals. This includes attorney fees, prices for relocating priests, as well as payouts to the abused.

>>2731746
There's a cool waterfall in Iceland called "The Grave of the Gods" where the Icelanders threw their idols when the country christenized. It is still a holy place to people of the "old religion." The idols were stone or wooden and have mostly eroded away but still clearly humanoid in design.

>>2731596
That's protestantism.
I was raised Catholic with the belief that Jews were still guilty of "deicide" and unless they accept Jesus and Mary into their hearts, they burn in hell with all the other heathens. Evangelical Protestants gives Jews a special place in their heart, mostly cause Jewish people need to exist for their version of the End Times to occur. Catholics don't believe the book of Revelation is a prediction but actually describing the persecution under Nero. And Catholics also believe that everyone has to convert to Catholicism before Jesus comes back.

>>2731607
100%. The Catholics genocided their way across South America. They also ruled over Europe for a few centuries which resulted in massive stagnation in terms of technology and cultural advancement. Many catholics still believe that divorcees are damned

>>2734413
*billion not million

>>2733233
>the young man is asked repeatedly for evidence
>refuses to provide evidence because he knows he can provide nothing but anglo language CIAslop that trace back to Zenz, a man who says God sent him on a mission to destroy China
>throws a shit fit instead like a child
>thinks the truth is a middle ground between blatant lies and the actual truth like a typical centroid
>talks out of both sides of his mouth saying it's "not as bad as the USA" while "like the japanese internment camps the USA did."
>asserts repeatedly without evidence china is targeting an "entire ethnic group."

not sorry, predditor, uyghur birth rates will continue to climb above the rate of the han majority while china continues to develop xinjiang economically, giving uyghurs good jobs, education, and public housing, while privileging them with the chinese equivalent of affirmative action. you will continue to believe the block apartments are "concentration camps" because genocidal zioslop news networks told you so. you will continue to believe the epstein class's lies about china because you're afraid of looking like a "genocide denier" to sleepwalking westoid robots who don't know anything besides what the news tells them. you are a liberal. the most controversial thing they do is reeducate ETIM chuds (i.e. NOT the entire ethnic group) instead of bombing their entire families like america and israel do. you think reeducation is scary and le bad because….? you can't figure out why. it's just heckin dystopian, ok!!!! it's literally 1984 to teach people to stop being CIA puppets.

>>2733233
stop.

>>2733233
>unironically believing they're "ethnic reeducation camps"
I know you're retarded Tom but this is still pretty disappointing

>>2731498
There is an alliance between petty libertarian types & Catholicism at time.
In my experience, I have met many right libertarians who flirt with Catholicism to undermine the ends of Statism (by limiting it with the Church like they would want with NAP as this fits the Aristotelian notion of having mediation by shared values for confederacy) & the clericalists vice versa flirts with libertarian sentiments because they also benefit from privatization (in wanting greater influence for the Church like it was before public services, i.e. large monastic estates, church-owned lands, private catholic schools, hospitals, universities–the Church resents the State/"The Leviathan" for taking a hold of these spheres and overall stealing its thunder).
Catholics like to point to Orthodoxy for the reverse relationship: Orthodoxy, with its division of the clergy, seems to benefit stronger, unified political government and go hand in hand, so they say Russia has a KGB clergy, point to things like Caesaropapism and the Byzantine Emperors.
I'll admit, the same could be said for Evangelicalism and the US government: the Israel lobby and evangelical Christians have a close relationship with the government as well…
…
I have to agree with the proponents of civic religion–that Catholicism & Christianity in general is opposed to our political ends. It might bait and tempt rulers to use & domesticate Christianity, but in the end that will come back to haunt them because Christianity can not be domesticated as Neronian Christianity will persist (as opposed to Domestic Christianity). & Neronian Christianity is by no means friendly, and it is overall a very anti-social force overall that drives sects of Christians to divide people from families into coven, sectarian conflict and divide a household as well as a nation until it is fully converted–and tread on the necks of kings and subdue the rulers like described in psalm 2 and in the prophecies.
…
So while Christianity might look like tasty bait to a ruler to rule with–that honeyed bait is a deception with tremendous consequences in the long-run and yet a ruler is reeled in like with their maxim of loving their enemies.
…
Leftists have that in common with Christianity is both have a strong drive to politics and drive them towards a cosmopolitan goal, whether it be steering a government towards crusades/missionary work/invading other cultures in general to also hijack them and steer them as well towards doing the same towards other bodies. Not that in those cases, the imperial powers don't benefit from using religion to seep its roots into those indigenous societies as well, but it can get out of control with full on integralism (which never quite gets its way).
…
I deem High Church Catholicism to be on par with Low Church Protestantism in being obnoxious in that regard.
It might seem bizarre to leftists to say this, who might think Church & State make great friends in exploiting the masses, but overall I have to agree with the proponents of civic religion, like Rousseau, Hobbes, Machiavelli–as well as point out that Christianity as a whole has never quite had the civic optimism of the ancients.
The parts where Christianity promotes civil obedience or even seems to back kings… is frankly little consolation (esp. for being half-hearted) compared to the overall package which has many elements that could be equally seditious in subtle ways.
…
Niccolo Machiavelli:
>This is that the Church has kept and keeps this province divided. And truly no province has ever been united or happy unless it has all come under obedience to one republic or to one prince, as happened to France and to Spain. The cause that Italy is not in the same condition and does not also have one republic or one prince to govern it is solely the Church. For although it has inhabited and held a temporal empire there, it has not been so powerful nor of such virtue as to be able to seize the tyranny of Italy and make itself prince of it. On the other hand, it has not been so weak that it has been unable to call in a power to defend it against one that had become too powerful in Italy, for fear of losing dominion over its temporal things. This has been seen formerly in very many experiences: when, by means of Charlemagne, it expelled the Lombards, who were then almost king of all Italy, and when in our times it took away power from the Venetians with the aid of France, then expelled the French with the aid of the Swiss. Thus, since the Church has not been powerful enough to be able to seize Italy, nor permitted another to seize it, it has been the cause that Italy has not been able to come under one head but has been under many princes and lords, from whom so much disunion and so much weakness has arisen that it has been lead to be the prey not only of barbarian powers but of whoever assaults it.

>Our religion has glorified humble and contemplative more than active men. It has then placed the highest good in humility, abjectness, and contempt of things human; the other placed it in greatness of spirit, strength of body, and all other things capable of making men very strong. And if our religion asks that you have strength in yourself, it wishes you to be capable of more of suffering than of doing something strong.

Thomas Hobbes
>Or else there must needs follow Faction, and Civil war in the Commonwealth, between the Church and State; between Spiritualists, and Temporalists; between the Sword Of Justice, and the Shield Of Faith; and (which is more) in every Christian mans own breast, between the Christian, and the Man. The Doctors of the Church, are called Pastors; so also are Civil Sovereigns: But if Pastors be not subordinate one to another, so as that there may bee one chief Pastor, men will be taught contrary Doctrines, whereof both may be, and one must be false. Who that one chief Pastor is, according to the law of Nature, hath been already shown; namely, that it is the Civil Sovereign;
…
>As for some other texts, to prove the Popes Power over civil Sovereigns (besides those of Bellarmine;) as that the two Swords that Christ and his Apostles had amongst them, were the Spiritual and the Temporal Sword, which they say St. Peter had given him by Christ: And, that of the two Luminaries, the greater signifies the Pope, and the lesser the King; One might as well infer out of the first verse of the Bible, that by Heaven is meant the Pope, and by Earth the King: Which is not arguing from Scripture, but a wanton insulting over Princes, that came in fashion after the time the Popes were grown so secure of their greatness, as to condemn all Christian Kings; and Treading on the necks of Emperours, to mock both them, and the Scripture, in the words of the 91. Psalm, “Thou shalt Tread upon the Lion and the Adder, the young Lion and the Dragon thou shalt Trample under thy feet.”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau:
>You may ask: ‘Why were there no wars of religion in the pagan world, where each state had its own form of worship and its own gods?’

>My reply is that just because each state had its own form of worship as well as its own government, no state distinguished its gods from its laws. Political war was also theological war; the gods had, so to speak, provinces that were fixed by the boundaries of nations. The god of one people had no right over other peoples. The gods of the pagans were not jealous gods

>This was the situation when Jesus came to set up on earth a spiritual kingdom, which, by separating the theological from the political system, destroyed the unity of the state, and caused the internal divisions that never ceased to trouble Christian peoples. This new idea of a kingdom of 'the other world' could never have occurred to pagans, so they always regarded the Christians as really rebels.

>However, as there was always a prince and civil laws as well as a church, this double power created a conflict of jurisdiction that made it impossible for Christian states to be governed well; and men never managed to discover whether they were obliged to obey the master or the priest.

>Several peoples, however, even in Europe and its neighbourhood, have tried to preserve or restore the old system–tired and failed, because the spirit of Christianity has won every time. The sacred cult has always remained or again become independent of the sovereign and not essentially linked with the body of the state.

>Among us Europeans, the Kings of England have been made heads of the Church, and the Czars have done much the same.

>The philosopher Hobbes is the only Christian writer who has seen the evil and seen how to remedy it, and has dared to propose bring the two heads of the eagle together again, restoring the total political unity without which no state or government will ever be rightly constituted. But he should have seen that Christianity's domineering spirit is incompatible with his system, and that the priest's side of the divide would always be stronger than the state's. What has drawn down hatred on his political theory is not so much what is false and terrible in it as what is just and true…

>But this religion, having no special relation to the body politic, leaves the laws with only the force they draw from themselves without adding anything to it; which means that one of the great bonds for uniting the society of the given country is left idle. Worse: so far from binding the citizens' hearts to the state, it detaches them from that and from all earthly things. I know of nothing more contrary to the social spirit.

>Christianity is an entirely spiritual religion, occupied solely with heavenly things; the Christian's country is not of this world.

>But I'm wrong to speak of a Christian republic–those terms are mutually exclusive.

Friedrich Nietzsche:
>Christian, again, is all deadly enmity to the rulers of the earth, to the "aristocratic"–along with a sort of secret rivalry with them (–one resigns one's "body" to them; one wants only one's "soul"…). And Christian is all hatred of the intellect, of pride, of courage, of freedom, of intellectual libertinage; Christian is all hatred of the senses, of joy in the senses, of joy in general…

HP Lovecraft:
>In the later stages of decay Christianity undoubtedly did harm through its exaltation of softness, justice, and universal brotherhood, and its demand for the renunciation of earthly ties and loyalty; but it is a mistake to consider this the principal cause of decline, as some do. Rome would never have adopted this mawkish slave-religion if it had not begun to acquire the soft slave-mind and the subtle slave-religion of human equality. The nation, through other causes, had come psychologically unfitted for the traditional classic polytheism and the virile schools of philosophy. Itself decadent, it had begun to demand something like the slave-faiths and mystically consolatory cults of the long-decadent East.

>It was pure accident that Christianity won–but once it did win, it undeniably did harm through its weakening effect on patriotism. It sapped at the vigorously nationalistic cast of the Roman mind, and made the people feel that the identity–or even the nature–of their earthly government was comparatively inessential.

Martin Bormann:
>It follows from the incompatibility of National Socialist and Christian views that we must reject any strengthening of existing Christian denominations or any support for newly emerging Christian denominations. There is no difference between the different Christian denominations. For this reason, the idea of establishing a Protestant Imperial Church by uniting the various Protestant churches has been finally abandoned, because the Protestant Church is just as hostile to us as the Catholic Church. Any strengthening of the Protestant Church would only work against us.

>It was a historical mistake of the German emperors in the Middle Ages that they repeatedly created order at the Vatican in Rome. In general, it is a mistake that we Germans unfortunately all too often fall into: we strive to create order when we should have an interest in fragmentation and disunity. The Hohenstaufens should have had the greatest interest in the fragmentation of church power. From the point of view of the empire, it would have been best if not one pope, but at least two, if possible even more, popes had existed and fought each other…

>More and more the people must be wrested away from the churches and their organs, the pastors. Of course, from their point of view, the churches will and must defend themselves against this loss of power.

>But the churches must never again be allowed to have any influence on the leadership of the people.

>This must be broken completely and finally. Only the Reich leadership and, on its behalf, the party, its branches and affiliated associations have the right to lead the people.

>We would be repeating the mistakes that were the empire's downfall in the past centuries if, after recognizing the ideological opposition of the Christian denominations, we now somehow contributed to strengthening one of the various churches. The interest of the empire lies not in overcoming, but in maintaining and strengthening ecclesiastical particularism."
…
Rousseau denies -any- social utility for Christianity–except that it has utility for tyranny–which, tbh, even looking at the age of absolutism… not really even at its core can Christianity be domesticated for tyrants to use.
There are a number of problems with that as well:

1. 
   

Even so-called "slave morality" is applied to the rulers themselves–who too are expected to be a "slave of all"… which I know some will say aptly, "but that is Tyranny".
Honestly, Nietzsche, Rousseau, Machiavelli, etc, make it out to be an Oriental import, but actually it is what their beloved Aristotle/Plato also advocate (although, to be frank, not as servile as Christ did–in Plato's case, it was more about serving in the way of an expert physician and not a "slave of all" which tbh Christ's hyperbolic speech is so strong that it goes to an extreme to what was originally intended). Jesus fits Aristotle's description of the Greek father as opposed to the Persian tyrant father (which Jews associate with the Egyptians and their Pharaoh)… which is a whole other bag to jump into.

1. 
   

Civil obedience can easily be foiled–the absolutist rulers were easily undermined with all their show of divine right of kings, simply by the Catholic and Protestant factions–any Christian could use any appeal to private judgement to bypass this, so it's the same issue with pure theocracy that Jesus can become a sock puppet anyone can latch onto, and if the clergy thinks it has a great hold–then all it takes is private revelation and a new religion like with the Taiping Rebellion or the Mormons or Martin Luther.
Hobbes talks about this extensively about the dangers of private revelation/private judgement and the need for a strong civil sovereign… ultimately, this is why I also think hereditary monarchy is more secure than theocracy: appeal to a hereditary ruler and proof of blood seems more secure, and that is something Shia Islam makes use of with sayyids and their clergy… but it needs to be fixed closer to a particular dynasty like with North Korea, I think, and that is why I prefer it over clericalism/theocracy in a strict sense…
& like Nietzsche points out,
>(–one resigns one's "body" to them; one wants only one's "soul"…)

1. 
   

The Christian Divine right of kings isn't all that.
Before Christianity, under paganism, rulers had their own pantheon in a way and were gods, like Alexander the Great, Caligula, Domitian, Aurelian, Diocletian, etc.
The clergy / High Church sentiment isn't really for it–at least, not like it once was under Gallicanism and Anglicanism–it didn't really help the Russian Tsars motivate the people to form a cult of personality around them since really Christians don't feel that much attachment to that kind of royalty… only to Jesus… so they can move on without the tsars, at best they get martyrdom and become tools themselves for Christian sentiment rather than Christian sentiment enabling their own kingdoms to persist and prosper… the familialism behind the Tsars is not strengthened by Christianity even, it just siphons it off to the Church in the end for all cases of these royalty, so really they're the ones being cucked by cuckoo birds who swap out the eggs and grab the minds of children to mostly be loyal and attached to another king for all its worth–which the Thomas Becket controversy shows.
Right now, Christian kings are received like court eunuchs… that even Joe Biden seems to outshine them in Majesty… and compared to Communist leaders? it's not even a contest–political ideology and that kind of civic religion has totally outclassed the divine right of kings in political expedience, majesty & preeminence, and security (which might be hard for many /leftypol/ anons to believe, but looking at how Lenin has so many statues of himself & Stalin or ᴉuᴉlossnW's cult of personality, how Mao is received like a prophet, how North Korea is going… compared to the fate of King Charles I and how modern constitutional royalty today are like… it speaks for itself, an absolutist would be happier moving beyond it).

>>2734719
>we could have won against the bourgeoisie if the baizuos weren't heckin sinophobic against the Chinese billionaires
Much coping and seething

>>2731504
you say as if almost every fucking evangelical branch of christianism wasn't equally as reactionary if not even worse, Catholicism and it's institutions are bourgeois adjacent but only evangelicalism is able to naturally breed shit as retarded as the KKK, it's also the easiest branch to weaponize against the proletariat and the people, which makes the fact that United Statians like it so much pretty unsurprising.

>>2734742
A big reason for Christianity falling out of favor is that rulers themselves have wised up to all this…
While neoconservative politicians might take advantage of Christian sentimentality–that's because they totally have the private Christians on a leash… neoconservative politicians have -no- intention of actually bringing back Christian Theocracy from its current declawed lion state. Most conservatives, even the most religious ones, are far more content with the status quo of multi-party democracy and religious neutrality.
But Rousseau is ultimately right that Domestic Christianity is a fraud not only to the ruled but even to the rulers who might seek to benefit from it.
…
So… even the most earnest Christian conservative pundits… are kind of useless at the end of the day… for all their talk of morality and making society better… a big mistake with conservative Christians (who mightily favor Christianity for social utility) is like Rousseau says–Domestic Christianity fails.
…
There can only really be Neronian Christianity, the Christianity that acts like a coven sect, among the Churches–even when society fully converts… but the Neronian tendencies are fully present the more and more Christianity doesn't have a hold over society as a whole, because many admit that Christian flavor comes out the more persecuted it is… but this Neronian Christianity is extremely lacking for social utility, not only lacking but is counter-intuitive to sociability.
…
But that is why you have religious neutrality (so-called "secularism") is because the rulers as well as the bourgeois wised up and realized this, & so just kept Christianity to a private sphere and diluted it.
…
Again, another reason why ultimately it shouldn't interest rulers to adopt Christianity is TBH Christianity is downright hostile:
Comparing them to Pharaohs & Jezebel & overall seeing every ruler as a Pharaoh, as a Nero, as a Henry VIII… the part where the Jews ask for a King and they're rebuked for it… not peace but a sword, dividing a household/nation/kingdom… son against father for Christ's sake… areas like Psalm 2 and Isaiah 60 and Isaiah 61 – these heavily outweigh passages like Fear God, honor the King… like I said, this all considered, it's really little consolation in the bigger picture.
…
Psalm 2
>Why do the nations conspire
>and the peoples plot in vain?
…
>The kings of the earth rise up
>and the rulers band together
>against the Lord and against his anointed, saying,
>“Let us break their chains
>and throw off their shackles.”
…
>The One enthroned in heaven laughs;
>the Lord scoffs at them.
>He rebukes them in his anger
>and terrifies them in his wrath, saying,
>“I have installed my king
>on Zion, my holy mountain.”
…
>I will proclaim the Lord’s decree:
>He said to me, “You are my son;
>today I have become your father.
>Ask me, and I will make the nations your inheritance,
>the ends of the earth your possession.
>You will break them with a rod of iron;
>you will dash them to pieces like pottery.”
…
Isaiah 60:
>The sons of foreigners shal build up your walls,
>And their kings shall minister to you;
>Therefore your gates shall be open continually;
>They shall not be shut day or night,
>That men may bring to you the wealth of the Gentiles,
>And their kings in procession.
>For the nation and kingdom which will not serve you shall perish,
>And those nations shall be utterly ruined.

Isaiah 60:16
>Thou shalt also suck the milk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of kings: and thou shalt know that I the Lord am thy Savior and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob

Aristotle:
>And this is the reason why Hellenic states were originally governed by kings; …the kingly form of government prevailed because they were of the same blood and suckled 'with the same milk'.
…
Isaiah 61:
>Strangers shall stand and feed your flocks,
>And the sons of the foreigner
>Shall be your plowmen and your vinedressers.
>But you shall be named the priests of the Lord,
>They shall call you the servants of our God.
>You shall eat the riches of the Gentiles,
>And in their glory you shall boast.
…
Babylon is Fallen:
>Babel's garments we've rejected and our fellowship is over!
…

So after reading this… Christian monarchy is really like riding a wild, stray horse.
And not only does it undermine nationalism with the cosmopolitanism, but also the household royalism of kings…
Ephesians 2:19-20
>Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
…
So as God the Father and Mt. Zion is hostile to the other gods like Zeus and Mt. Olympus… likewise, God the Son is hostile to other would-be king of kings… that is why the Roman Emperors persecuted Christians–they were king of kings… and the role that Christ plays is much like the role that Kings would naturally play in being the archstones of their peoples… as it is said, that is what it means to suck the milk from the breasts of kings… so not only is Mt. Olympus or Mt. Paektu threatened, but Palatine Hill (the palace).
…

In this other video with Christians in Japan pestering a Japanese man:
>Christian: "There is a King–there is a King of Japan, you realize that, right?"

<Japanese Man: "Emperor, right?"

>Christian: "No, King."

<Japanese Man: "The King–what?"

>Christian: "His name's Jesus"

<Japanese Man: "In Japan–?"

>Christian: "Yes–"

<Japanese Man: "I–"

>Christian: "So Jesus is the Lord of Japan."
…
This considered with some remarks by Trad West… sum up why there is a tension between royal monarchy and Christianity, and why I think it is not even really that beneficial for rulers to adopt Christianity in the long run (I'm not denying there are potential short-term gains that greatly benefited the early adopters of Christianity and who were effective the Church's secular henchmen, like Constantine & Charlemagne… but not even as secular henchmen being enforcers of the Church does it really altogether honor them enough, –only the most saintly kings who give everything really get that spot the pedestal… otherwise it is the case that Theodosius was as great an enforcer of Christianity as Charlemagne and still gets a dishonorable view of him as with Caesarism in general… with the clericalist portrayal of Ambrose blocking Theodosius for all that… being a secular enforcer/henchmen of Christianity, all in all, is lacking in terms of honor, denies preeminence (that is all too foundational to monarchy), and for the contemporary state of things royalty are like court eunuchs.

>>2734760
Protestants are not christians

>>2731591
>It would be neat to give catholics there own special administrative region as massive social experiment to see how an attempt at distrubutist economics goes
Distributism is frankly TBH just re-branded Aristotelian policy… again… another re-iteration of Aristotle's appeal to the middle class.
It's hardly innovation or a new economic ideology… just pick up a copy of Aristotle's Politics and you've got Distributism in a nutshell.
Hobbes was right to say with them you get Aristotelity.

>Widespread Property Ownership:
That's Aristotle's appeal to a very broad middle class.
This is just petty bourgeois "mom & pop shop" ideology.

>Subsidiarity
>Localism and Guilds
Aristotle's appeal to decentralization/political pluralism "partnership of clans" as opposed to Plato's State Corporatism in Republic.

Here is a Catholic series "Saints vs Scoundrels" where it features Marx and Hilaire Belloc representing their economic views.
P1:
https://www.ewtn.com/programs/339-saints-vs.-scoundrels/102515?backToProgramPage=

P2:
https://www.ewtn.com/programs/339-saints-vs.-scoundrels/102516?backToProgramPage=

For the interest of this thread, anons can watch the entire Saints vs Scoundrels series here.
https://www.ewtn.com/programs/339-saints-vs.-scoundrels
&
https://ewtn-test.futuresoft.com/Home/Series/catalog/video/en/saints-vs-scoundrels

It's funny that people usually knack on the Protestants for having thinktanks like PragerU, but TBH Catholicism has a fair share of that and it is just as preachy.

>>2734424
he ran from the thread as usual

At least with me, it's been (as in it may be diffrent for you or diffrent now) but…

@ Islam:M
@ Protestentism is for faith, "fighting demons and Jesus
@ Orthodox is unkown to me, but the final church, perhaps?
@ Catholicms is for paganism

@ The New Catholic Rites are for Non-Satanic Satanic Catholics
@ TYW Catholicms is for women to leave the Catholica Church.
@ Orthodoxy is the world church.

@ Modern churches are for the "self".
@ Judaism is Empowering yourself.
@ Satanism is about being practical and learning about your evil.
@ Satanic non-jewish "Judaism" is about ruining yourself to God and your past and future family.

>>2735169
The four gospels were written long after a historical Jesus, if he even existed, would have existed, and possibly even after the life of the historical Paul. The four gospels are thought now to have been written not by the apostles they are traditionally attributed to, but to highly educated wealthy Greek-speaking Jews living in the Roman empire between the late 1st century and mid 2nd century CE. Each gospel was intended to evangelize to a different audience. Some gospels specialized in converting Jews, while other gospels specialized in converting gentiles. Most of your quotes are from Matthew, because Matthew took a tone speaking to Jews. Everything I have said so far is common knowledge, and I am resisting the urge to go into the more fringe ideas that arise from this, some of which I am fond of.

>>2735264
>but to highly educated wealthy Greek-speaking Jews
(by which I mean of Jewish ethnic ancestry. obviously they would have been Early Christians in terms of religion.)

>>2734742
>Ockham
But what do you find historically particular in Ockham? If we read his Summa Logicae, Book I (1323 CE), he portrays himself as an Aristotelian. Here is his prologue:
<The great fruits the science of language that we call “logic” brings for the followers of truth is taught by the authority of many experts, and reason and experience clearly confirm and prove it. Hence Aristotle, the principal author of this science, now calls it an introductory method, now a way of knowing, now a science common to all things, and the way to truth, giving us to understand by these remarks that the gateway to wisdom is open to no one except those educated in the science of logic.
https://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae/Book_I/Prologue
In Chapter 15, he further attributes the insubstantiality of universals directly to Aristotle, by citation from his Metaphysics:
<it is clear that, according to Aristotle’s intention, no universal is a substance
https://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Ockham/Summa_Logicae/Book_I/Chapter_15
So isn't what is immanent to nominalism also present in the ancient world?
>The rise of secular capitalism was a long development
When exactly did we get "secular capitalism"?
>The US isn't a theocracy
Here's what John Adams wrote in 1798:
<Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-3102
This shouldn't be too surprising, since John Locke himself believed that Catholics or Atheists were too untrustworthy to have a place in civil society. Protestant zealotry also manifested in atrocities like Witch Hunts, which are strictly modern  phenomena, not medieval, as people attempt to transpose on these periods. All recorded blasphemy laws were only abolished from the UK legislature in 2008.

>>2735345
IDK if you deliberately gave me a (You), but I'm a different anon.

>John Locke himself believed that Catholics or Atheists were too untrustworthy to have a place in civil society
This is the case.

>>2735696
the (you) appears based on IP. you might be using the same vpn or have the same ISP in the same region. It isn't controlled by the anon posting

>>2735696
Why not answer the post, if you're the same anon?

>>2731498
>guy's opinion on Catholicism
<guy's
The property-owning Jeffrey Epstein gender loves their euphoric circlejerk ideology of being a soy PMC intellectual who justifies colonialist human trafficking enslavement. Men love Catholic ideology of mass baby graves in septic tanks (see below for some world-historic amateur journalism that recently uncovered the truth about western Ireland)

>>2731536
>faith is a personal matter
our social consciousness is determined by material conditions, such as needing pain relief through spiritual faith due to economic hardship
>>2732044
>their anti-religion is actually a secret pseudo-theology
Spinoza's materialist dialectics inspired Einstein, not some mouthbreather trying to use logic to prove the existence of God

>>2733719
>I am a fetus and the liberals are trying to kill me
heh, you activated my trap card 😏

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=catholic+mass+baby+graves+in+ireland

https://southlondonsocialist.wordpress.com/2024/10/26/the-story-of-irelands-hidden-mass-graves/
>Following the publication of Corless’ original article — for which the Bon Secours order had essentially refused to provide any information — she deepened her research. At her own expense she got a health sector civil servant to retrieve the names of children whose death certificates listed the home as place of death. There were 796.
>The next month the Irish government ordered the creation of a national commission of investigation into the Church’s mother and baby homes. In 2016 it began excavations of the Tuam site and in 2017 it confirmed that “significant quantities of human remains” had been found. In 2019 the commission would conclude that 802 children died at the home during its 36 years.
<These were prisons for young women who got pregnant outside of marriage. Coming disproportionately from poor and marginalised backgrounds, often they had no one to defend them against the Church; sometimes they were effectively seized despite their families’ objections; sometimes they were willingly handed over. The commission concluded that Ireland’s proportion of unmarried mothers imprisoned in institutions was probably “the highest in the world”.
A single Catholic nun is more satanic than Jeffrey Epstein, I assume.

https://socialistalternative.ca/ireland-mother-baby-homes-report-a-whitewash/
>In November, the government signaled it would have to seal the records of the homes for 30 years. After a public outcry, this had to be rowed back, but they’ve spectacularly failed again. Not alone had they the Report for months and failed to give it to survivors before release, they’ve attempted to turn reality on its head with a narrative that it was society that was to blame for the misogyny and cruelty, with the state and church only reflecting back, not being the source of it.
>Some of the most enraging conclusions include:
>No evidence is found of money changing hands for babies. Yet numerous accounts exist of adoptive parents from the US giving “donations” to religious orders. The failure to investigate child trafficking can only be to prevent orders having to pay financial compensation – or go on trial, as they should.
…
>Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael are steeped in the abuse of the mother and baby homes and bending the knee to the church. In post-colonial countries with weak capitalist economies, two features often arise: they remain economically subservient to foreign powers and companies, but they also use religion to maintain control over the population, and rely on the organised church for authority. This was the case in Ireland.
what's the Catholic version of the word "goyim"? I need to check the JD Vancelings posts on Twitter, hold on…
>The Catholic church played a crucial role in justifying a strict regime of censorship after 1922, and had a hands-on role in drawing up the reactionary 1937 constitution, which among other things banned divorce. In reality, it was a wing of the Irish capitalist state, epitomised by the notorious John Charles McQuaid, Archbishop of Dublin from 1940 to 1971, whose network of spies across the capital city monitored the actions of those that “stepped out of line.” It was McQuaid, alongside other members of the church hierarchy and the medical establishment, who led the charge against the Mother and Child scheme in 1950, that would have given free healthcare to all mothers and children under the age of 16. These forces had a visceral antipathy to state intervention into healthcare. All sections of the political establishment, with the exception of then Health Minister Noel Browne, cravenly capitulated to their pressure.
Irish spies who work for the baby human sacrifice ritualists at the Vatican ✍️✍️✍️✍️

>>2731498

Religious people should be welcomed in the party if they are not willing to compromise with the reactionary ideas and authorities of their religion. That is the rule.

Now, my personal idea about Catholicism is that I don't like it. It is a legalistic and monarchist derangement of Eastern Orthodoxy. I find EO to be the most interesting religion among the abrahamist ones.

>EO and Socialism are natural enemies
Stalin prove you wrong

>>2734413

/tradcath/

Church of the Holy Sepulchre edition


The tomb of Christ, located in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, will be closed this Easter sunday (both Catholic and Orthodox Easters) for the first time in 1600 years (it formally became a site c 400 CE).
Israeli forces are closing what is considered the holiest site in Christendom despite it remaining open during the he crusades and all of Israel's other wars.

The Church is notably under the "status quo," with Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Armenian Christians all having jurisdiction over it. The Church requires agreement from priests of all faiths before any construction or renovation can be done on the building, and as religions are famously agreeable to each other, it has fallen in a state of disrepair over the centuries.

Evangelicals see this as another sign that the End of Days is approaching.

It’s dumb to advocate for state oppression of religion, while church and state should always be separate you shouldn’t try to ban religion in public settings, look at catholic Cuba where Castro was kind to his catholic citizens and encouraged them to use their religion’s teachings to have empathy and compassion for others versus catholic Poland were all of the anti-religious campaigns backfired and now most of Eastern Europe is more religious than Western Europe.

religion is cringe, nothin personnel

>>2744590
Forgot link.
https://cnewa.org/church-of-holy-sepulchre-remains-closed/

https://aleteia.org/2026/03/16/church-of-holy-sepulchre-closed-amid-war/

https://www.timesnownews.com/travel/war-brings-threat-to-culture-jerusalems-centuries-old-church-of-the-holy-sepulchre-faces-close-call-article-153862302